Thank you for this article. "A drunken driver or hit-and-run *might* also warrant police attention" (emphasis mine)? Small wonder the number cyclists and pedestrians killed by Portland automobile divers keeps increasing: there is no accountability for drivers here (and they know it). I couldn't get your map to load but surmise that the "density model" favored by City Hall is a factor (driver in the Pearl: "Honest, officer, I didn't deliberately run over that man without a car on purpose; I had just spotted a parking spot and didn't even see him in my rush to beat the other drivers circling for parking spots." Officer: "Completely understandable.").
"Ruined grass"? It can't get more aportlandish than that!
This is the 3rd or 4th reference I've seen to the City's **$4000** patio furniture. For 3 tables and at most 15 chairs? Back when it was legal for citizens to sit on their city's patio furniture, I sat down and read a chapter in my book: a pleasant experience although I had no sense that, being the only person at the table, I was surrounded by over $1000 of patio furniture.
The pricey patio furniture paid for with municipal funds will only come back if 1 or more food carts sets up in the City Hall courtyard. I think Charlie's counting on the length of the rainy season to blunt memory of his smear campaign, wanton destruction of memorabilia, and city-wide displacement of people. I don't think people will forget. I know I sure woudn't if I'd been insulted, devalued, dehumanized, harassed, and displaced like that.
If the pricey patio furniture returns, it will be illegal for Portland citizens to sit on it (although they paid for it). Charlie is leaving it up to the food cart employees to enforce this law that discriminates against those who cannot afford the price of food at a food cart.
What a sad commentary this is on Portland's having been chosen as a host of World Environment Day, whose theme this year was reducing your 'food print.'
Charlie is flip flopping again: the mayor's office had said that the patio furniture in the courtyard during the doomed days of the burrito cart was available for public use, not just food cart customers. Now the patio furniture is to be available for food cart customers only. The message is obviously that the City Hall courtyard is accessible only to Portlanders with enough money to buy.
This policy is discriminatory according to City Council's own "2013 Civil Rights Title VI Plan," which states in part that "no person shall be denied the benefits of or be subjected to discrimination in any City program, service, or activity on the grounds of race, religion, color, national origin, English proficiency, sex, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or source of income" (http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bibs/article…).
What Charlie is proposing is discriminatory on the basis of theplan he ratified. Are discriminatory policies illegal? Beats me. Am I proud of a city that openly discriminates against its most vulnerable citizens at the bottom of the economic ladder? No.
Say what? "jaywalking was the reason he stopped McCorvey, which his boss, Lieutenant Mike Fort, called a legitimate pretext to investigate someone for prostitution"?? I had begun to wonder whether lucidity has totally left Portland, and now I know that it has. One and a half million for new computers for the police is a total waste (City Council, 8/14/13). Jaywalking is often the safest route for a pedestrian (no cars to enter the intersection the pedestrian legally has the right to cross). Seeing someone jaywalk is NOT a legitimate reason for investigating anyone for prostitution. In any neighborhood. It's not rocket science. Hmm, other the lacking the ability to make lucid decisions, I wonder what other critical thinking skills are absent from the force.
What you are saying is imho closer to empirical reality than what the Oregonian reports. That makes it important, which makes me wish you would add its publication date. City Hall doesn't date a lot of its records, but the Merc is made of better stuff.
Someone wiser than myself once remarked that "the dogs may bark, but the caravan rolls on."
Insightful report. This newly revealed reality poses an epistemological dilemma for Portland citizens: some of the uniformed cops we see on our streets aren't really cops (with a sworn duty to protect and whatever) but instead, are, for the nonce, independent contractors working for, say, the PBA. If I'm sleeping in front of City Hall at 7am, is the person kicking me awake a cop or a contractor? In most places, one can slide by using simple premises like "if it looks and quacks like a duck, it is one." Not here! Local city and county intrigues are more labyrintian than the mazaes in a Philip K. Dick novel. Brrr.
All Comments »
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
Contact Info |
Production Guidelines |